World's most powerful nation votes to further harm its political system?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not - at all - one of those knee-jerk anti-Americans that you often find in Europe (especially, I'm afraid, Continental Europe), saying what can you expect from the dark heart of capitalism etc. etc. No, I like a lot of things about the States, its dynamism and positivity. You get that if you live there, even if only for a few months like I did a few years back. I am less keen on its attitude to public services, or some of its awful reactionary laws. But again, let's not confuse America and Americans, most of whom I believe to be decent people with values very similar to ours.

But let's also be honest about its political system. There is a clear reason why the politics of the pork barrel has always blighted American politics, and that is the lack of regulation on party donations. Specifically, in the modern age the lack of regulation on TV advertising spots means that electioneering becomes a battle of wallets, not policies. You can see the result clearly on US TV during an election campaign.

You need, it is said, at least $1m to run for Congress where in the UK, by contrast, you can spend a maximum of about GBP 12,000 to become an MP. And what happens after a US election? Well, the people who gave that money want favours. In the process, even good men become corrupted.

So, what does this new law do? Firstly, to be completely non-partisan, it exacerbates the problem immensely by accelerating the money arms race. Secondly - to declare my obvious preference that the Democrats win - it slants the race in favour of the Republicans, who will always have deeper pockets in terms of corporate sponsorship.

As Obama says, "it's a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Quite.

The corporate lobby, like every other grouping, has a right to their opinion. But it doesn't have the right to run a country.

Well, let's not write him off just yet. To be fair, what the Supreme Court does he's powerless to stop. (Why do the judges have to be political appointees, hence currently a Republican majority)?

Anyway, let's see if he can do something useful before he gets thrashed in the mid-terms and is hobbled for the rest of his presidency, like Clinton. If he can even make modest improvements in healthcare, it'd be a start.

Subscribe/Links

About the blogger

Activist, free thinker, Labour Party management team through 2001 and 2005 general elections, responsible for Labour's early web presence and creator of its first-ever national electoral register. Dad to two lovely little girls. Now work as project/programme/interim manager for an evil multinational, with a sideline in political commentary.

Politically think of myself as a loyalist (rather than a parrot). Member of Progress and the Co-op. My posts are vetted only by my, er, own sense of discretion and propriety. I've worked in business for many years, so have no truck with anti-business prejudice. Like social/ethical business, co-operatives and sustainability. Fought one general election and longlisted by NEC panel to be Labour candidate in 2010.